SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TheSlowLane who wrote (8321)9/21/1998 11:19:00 AM
From: Chris W.  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 12468
 
Hi everyone. I am new to this group. Can anyone point me in the direction of a good article or post about Winstar. I know what they do, but I am really interested in
1) how much staying power they have financially
2) what needs to happen to make them successful

Any help or opinions would be appreciated.

Chris



To: TheSlowLane who wrote (8321)9/21/1998 11:55:00 AM
From: SteveG  Respond to of 12468
 
<A> WSJ: Telecommunications: Breakup: Cut The Connection
By Stephanie N. Mehta
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

Is the best way to conquer the coveted last mile to sever it from the Baby
Bells?

Some rivals believe that is perhaps the only way they will get equal
access to the local networks controlled by the regional Bell companies. They
would like to see the Baby Bells create -- voluntarily or otherwise -- a
separate wholesale operation that would sell or lease parts of their local
networks to all carriers, including their former parent.

"It would dramatically change the behavior of the Bell company," says
Michael D. Pelcovitz, chief economist for MCI WorldCom Inc. "It would have
absolutely no reason to discriminate against competitors."

Competitors complain that the five Baby Bells and other local carriers
have stalled in implementing rules that require local phone companies to
open their networks to rivals. Most potential rivals need to be able to
lease parts of the Bell network in order to deliver service because it would
be virtually impossible for any competitor to reconstruct the nation's
local-telephone infrastructure, particularly the so-called last mile of
wires that connects homes to telephone-switching stations.

Moreover, would-be competitors say the Baby Bells discourage competition
by dragging their feet when processing orders that would transfer customers
from a Bell company to a rival, or by charging exorbitant fees to put
competitors' own necessary equipment in the Bells' facilities.

The upstart carriers point out that, so far, no Bell phone company has
passed the Federal Communications Commission's 14-point test proving it has
opened its market to competition. Until it does so, a Bell phone company
isn't allowed to enter the lucrative long-distance market. (Among the items
on the checklist: offering competitors access to 911, directory assistance
and other services.)

But despite rivals' complaints, the regional Bells say they already are
fulfilling their legal obligation to open their networks. "We know we have a
very good line of business serving competitive local-exchange carriers and
other wholesale customers," says Randy L. New, vice president of legislative
implementation for BellSouth Corp. of Atlanta.

To be sure, a once-lively effort to get the Bells to let go of their
local-network operations hasn't gone far. A piece of draft legislation
calling for the Bells to divest themselves of their local facilities has
failed to gain much support from federal lawmakers or state regulators.

LCI International Inc., a long-distance carrier that was trying to enter
the local market, initially proposed this kind of structural separation in a
filing with the FCC. A few measures are percolating at the state level,
including a proposal before the Illinois Commerce Commission to break up
Chicago-based Ameritech Corp.'s telephone operations in Illinois.

The proposals differ on whether the moves should be voluntary or not;
whether the retail and wholesale operations could be owned by the same
parent company; and what assets the retail company would retain. But all
seek to shake up the telecommunications industry in much the same way as the
breakup of the old American Telephone & Telegraph Co., which opened the
doors to long-distance competition and created the Baby Bells.

Advocates of divestiture know their proposals are dramatic, particularly
because it has been less than three years since the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 sought to open local service to competition. Many in the industry
admit that their push may be seen as too aggressive. "Critics will say, 'You
haven't given the telecom act time to fail,'" says Donna Sorgi, MCI
WorldCom's vice president of law and policy. Before it merged with WorldCom,
MCI Communications had filed a petition in support of separation in
Illinois.

Separation of local carriers' wholesale and retail operations isn't a
novel idea. Electricity utilities, which have begun the process of
deregulating, have agreed to create separate wholesale units that will sell
access to energy. And Southern New England Telecommunications Corp., the
incumbent local carrier for most of Connecticut, has split into distinct
wholesale and retail operations in exchange for state permission to offer
long-distance service. SNET's retail business buys local access from the
wholesale company and "isn't treated any better than our competitors," says
Kevin Moore, an SNET spokesman. The company agreed earlier this year to be
acquired by SBC Communications Inc. of San Antonio, a Baby Bell.

But proponents of separation say the Connecticut model doesn't go far
enough. The wholesale and retail divisions of SNET are still owned by the
same parent. Critics say the wholesale unit could be driven to sell access
to its sister retail unit at lower prices than it charges competitors. Asked
about this possibility, the SNET spokesman says: "There are strict rules and
regulations designed to keep these two entities separate."

The separation issue raises a question that's on the minds of many in the
industry: Is the last mile a natural monopoly? If the wiring into homes is
so impossible to duplicate that it must be divested and regulated
separately, some wonder whether that area of phone service can be addressed
competitively.

AT&T Corp., which recently agreed to acquire Tele-Communications Inc. in
the hopes of using the cable-TV operator's lines as an alternative to the
last mile, stops short of calling the local networks a monopoly. But, says
Mark Rosenblum, an AT&T vice president, "The reality is that right now there
is only one communications path to virtually every customer in America, and
that path has to be made available on viable terms if there's going to be
any kind of competition."

Some Bell executives say structural separation simply would create more
cumbersome regulation. Moreover, says Ed Wynn, vice president of regulatory
policy for Ameritech, competitors already have some recourse if they feel
they are being discriminated against by the Bell company. "You don't need
divestiture to get equal access," he says. "If carriers don't think they're
getting equal access, they should file a complaint {with state utility
commissions}."



To: TheSlowLane who wrote (8321)9/21/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: SteveG  Respond to of 12468
 
<A> WSJ: Telecommunications: Bypassing The Bells: Changing Picture: Cable-TV
Companies Are At Last Starting To Push Into The Phone Business
By Leslie Cauley
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

After years of false starts and dashed hopes, cable companies are finally
plugging into the phone business.

It always seemed like a natural fit: Cable companies have networks of
wires going into people's homes. With upgrading, those wires can transmit
telephone calls -- local and long-distance -- as well as interactive video,
Internet access and high-speed data services.

But upgrading cable networks proved a nightmare of soaring expenses and
technical hassles, and cable companies retreated from their early grand
plans for local phone competition. For years, they have been silent as
long-distance firms have taken their place as combatants in the local-phone
battle.

Now a handful of cable-TV companies are quietly pressing ahead with plans
to offer competing phone services in a few pockets around the country,
luring customers with a discounted package of local, long-distance, cable-TV
and Internet services. And, in some cases, they're undercutting the local
Bell's prices by 60% or more.

"We think it's an attractive business proposition," says Joseph Cece,
senior vice president of strategic planning for Cablevision Systems Corp.,
Woodbury, N.Y., which currently provides service to about 1,000 businesses
and 1,000 homes on Long Island.

Other cable companies making a push into phone service include Cox
Communications Inc., based in Atlanta, and MediaOne Group, the former cable
arm of U S West Inc., the Denver-based Bell. Cox currently offers phone
service to about 50,000 of its cable-TV customers in Orange County, Calif.,
and about 10% have signed up. MediaOne, recently spun off from U S West, has
introduced phone service in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Jacksonville and Pompano,
Fla., and, most recently, Boston. It says early results are encouraging.

The idea of cable companies morphing into phone companies recently got a
big shot in the arm when AT&T Corp. announced plans to acquire
Tele-Communications Inc., with an eye on using TCI's cable-TV lines to
muscle its way into the local phone business. By going that route, New
York-based AT&T hopes to bust into the market aggressively, while also
avoiding paying the Bells billions of dollars in access fees to originate
and terminate AT&T calls.

The audacious gamble drew gasps from some longtime AT&T watchers -- and
applause from the cable-TV industry, which viewed the deal as a strong
endorsement of the power and potential of cable lines in the new digital
world. "In many ways, it validates what we are doing," says Charles McElroy,
Cox's vice president of phone service.

Cable's push into the local phone market comes after years of promises to
take on the Bells in their home telephone turf: The industry's infatuation
with phone service was ignited in the early 1990s, when the Baby Bells,
flush with excitement following Bell Atlantic Corp.'s bid to buy TCI a la
AT&T, vowed to offer competing cable-TV services. Cable-TV companies,
alarmed at the prospect of having to do battle with seven well-financed
rivals, responded by threatening to offer competing phone services. For
several years, the two sides argued about who would have an edge in the new
digital world, with each claiming that it could use its network to zap all
manner of new digital fare to consumers, including interactive TV, Internet
access and phone service.

Congress, sniffing a consumer bonanza afoot (read: price wars), passed
legislation aimed at fanning the flames of that rivalry. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 encouraged local, long-distance and cable-TV
companies to invade one another's markets, erasing regulatory boundaries
that had kept them separate for years. Lawmakers looked to cable companies,
with their direct links into America's homes, to lead the charge on the
Bells, reasoning that others would soon follow.

But that didn't happen. By the time the new bill was signed into law, in
February 1996, the Bell Atlantic-TCI deal was history, and the Bells were
having serious questions about the financial wisdom of spending billions to
upgrade their networks to handle video, a market that some Bells regarded as
peripheral at best. After a few high-profile stumbles in video, the Bells
instead set their sights on the long-distance market, regarded as much
easier prey, given the architecture of their century-old networks.

With the competitive heat off, most cable companies went back to tending
their core video operations and mostly forgot about offering competing phone
services.

A lot of cable companies hadn't been all that thrilled about taking on the
Bells anyway, because of the huge expense involved: Traditional cable
networks were designed to zap movies from cable "head-ends," where videos
are electronically stored and distributed, to customers' homes -- but with
no reverse path, which is essential for phone service. Likewise, cable-TV
billing systems weren't designed to track telephone calls, which can vary
wildly in cost depending on destination and time of day, necessitating other
expensive upgrades. A host of other technical issues, such as how to power
telephones, which work off independent power sources (so they don't go out
during power outages) only added to the expense.

AT&T's splashy entry into the cable world is helping to refocus attention
on the whole cable-phone approach, leading some cable companies that had
abandoned the idea to take a second look.

Cablevision was an early proponent of a cable-phone strategy. The company
started offering some limited phone services to business customers in 1994,
when most states still didn't allow anybody to compete with the local Bell.
New York, in the forefront on deregulation, has allowed such competition for
years.

To go after business customers, Cablevision extended its cable network to
industrial parks and business centers, places where most cable lines don't
run. The new cable-TV lines were connected to Cablevision's backbone
network, a fiber line that runs throughout Long Island and connects its
cable head-ends. From there, the new lines had to be connected to the local
phone network of Nynex Corp., which has since been merged into Bell
Atlantic, so that people could call anywhere they wanted.

To gear up, Cablevision installed its own computerized phone switches, set
up separate customer-service centers and hired dozens of workers with
expertise in telephone installations and the like. Many of the new hires
were former employees of Nynex, which was then in the process of
restructuring to get rid of thousands of employees. The timing, for
Cablevision, couldn't have been better. "Their downsizing created an
opportunity for us," recalls Mr. Cece, the company's strategy chief.

Today, four years after that grand experiment began, Cablevision considers
phone service a certified hit: The company currently provides phone service
to more than 1,000 businesses -- including major hospitals and financial
institutions -- throughout Long Island, over more than 30,000
Cablevision-branded telephone lines.

Given its successful run with commercial customers, the decision to enter
the residential phone market was an easy one, Mr. Cece says.

Cablevision, which began its move into the residential market last year,
today offers phone service to about 6,000 customers in neighborhoods
scattered throughout Long Island, and almost 1,000 homes have signed up. The
company says it plans to make the service available to about 50,000
residential customers by year's end, with an eye on eventually offering it
to all four million of its potential customers in the New York area.

By the end of this year, Cablevision expects to generate close to $50
million in revenue from phone service -- a small chunk of Cablevision's
annual revenue, which totaled about $1.9 billion in 1997. But given the
ever-improving prospects for cable-phone service, Mr. Cece believes it will
turn into an increasingly important part of Cablevision's businesss over the
long haul.

Cablevision is luring customers with a discounted package of local,
long-distance, cable-TV and Internet-access services. Under one plan,
customers can call throughout Long Island without incurring toll charges.
(Bell Atlantic splits the island up into three calling areas and charges
extra for calls that cross those boundaries, but it also offers several
flat-rate plans for Long Island and greater New York.) Under another
Cablevision plan, customers can pay $6 a month for a phone line, and get a
second phone line free. (Bell Atlantic charges a flat $6.60 per line.) Or
customers can buy services a la carte to create their own calling plan,
paying prices that are generally 10% to 70% cheaper than Bell Atlantic's own
a la carte rates. Cablevision can afford to charge less because, unlike Bell
Atlantic, it doesn't have to serve the entire region, including unprofitable
areas and difficult-to-serve neighborhoods.

For customers, potential savings abound: One sample plan offers one phone
line, a choice of three calling features, such as call forwarding, call
waiting and caller ID, and long-distance calls for 13 cents a minute. Total
cost: $12.10 with Cablevision, compared with $15.35 with Bell Atlantic
(which doesn't offer long distance), a 27% discount. (Neither price includes
a monthly $3.50 subscriber-line charge mandated by the Federal
Communications Commission.)

Cablevision also offers discounts of 10% to 30% off its core cable
services to customers who sign up for phone service: The more customers
spend on phone services, the deeper the discounts. Customers who spend at
least $25 in a month get 10% of their phone bill -- $2.50 in the case of a
$25 phone expenditure -- knocked off their cable-TV bill. Spend $250 on
phone service, and get 30% of your phone bill taken off cable. Discounts cap
out at around $90, equivalent to a free month of premium cable service.

Bell Atlantic at the moment isn't allowed to offer long distance, part of
a federal ban on all the Bells until they can show that enough local phone
competition has developed to warrant letting them into long distance. But
Bell Atlantic is inching closer: It recently received clearance from New
York regulators to offer long distance, paving the way for the company to
get federal approval. Once that happens, Bell Atlantic says, it will finally
be on an equal footing with Cablevision and other rivals, which don't have
any limits on the services they can offer.

In the meantime, Bell Atlantic is offering deep discounts on some consumer
services: One new plan, called Value Pack, lets customers pick as many as 13
special services, such as call waiting and caller ID, for $17.99 a month,
compared with its a la carte pricing of $3 to $5.19 apiece. Under another
service, called Weekend Choice, Bell Atlantic customers pay $4.95 a month to
be able to place in-state toll calls for eight cents a minute regardless of
their destination. Regular in-state toll calls, by comparison, can cost as
much as 15 cents a minute.

Later this year, Bell Atlantic also plans to begin reselling the video
services of DirecTV, the satellite-television broadcaster, throughout New
York. Bell Atlantic recently began offering the services of DirecTV, which
offers dozens of channels and pay-per-view events, in a few other markets,
and early response has been encouraging. Bruce Gordon, a group president for
Bell Atlantic, says the company eventually plans to bundle all of its
services -- local, long distance, video, Internet access and cellular -- in
one package.

Once that happens, Mr. Gordon argues that Bell Atlantic "will be at parity
in terms of the products in our bundle, but still superior to the
competition" insofar as its upgraded phone network is concerned. He also
contends that Bell Atlantic's long history in offering phone service will
play to its advantage once phone competition heats up.

As for Cablevision, Mr. Gordon says Bell Atlantic is mindful of the
potential threat it poses, but not particularly worried at the moment. "They
are a force to be reckoned with, but their evolution in the consumer market
is early on," he says, noting that Cablevision hasn't yet "captured enough
of a customer base to be a nose-to-nose competitor."

But that seems to matter little to the likes of William Wladyka, who
dumped Bell Atlantic about six months ago to give Cablevision a try.

Mr. Wladyka and his wife are consultants who work out of their Nassau
County, N.Y., home. He says they rack up major time on the phone calling
around Long Island and into New York City. As such, he says, they were
attracted by Cablevision's promises of big savings.

So far, things are working out: Since switching to Cablevision's phone
service, Mr. Wladyka says, their monthly phone bill has been cut in half.

Asked if he misses anything about his longtime phone provider, Bell
Atlantic, Mr. Wladyka doesn't hesitate: "Not one thing," he says, especially
"the high bills."
---
Ms. Cauley is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's New York
bureau.
---
Package Deals

Major cable companies offering residential phone service

Company: Cablevision Systems Corp.
Where: Long Island, N.Y.
First Offered*: September 1997

Company: Comcast Corp.
Where: West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Fla; Baltimore
First Offered*: November 1997

Company: Cox Communications Inc.
Where: Phoenix; San Diego and Orange County, Calif.; Hartford, Conn.; Omaha,
Neb.; Hampton Roads, Va.
First Offered*: September 1997

Company: Jones Intercable Inc.
Where: Prince George's County, Md.; Alexandria, Va.
First Offered*: July 1996

Company: MediaOne Group
Where: Los Angeles; Jacksonville and Pompano, Fla.; Atlanta; Boston suburbs

First Offered*: January 1998

Company: Rifkin & Associates
Where: Atlanta; Miami Beach, Fla.
First Offered*: November 1996

Company: Tele-Communications Inc.
Where: Hartford, Conn.; Arlington Heights, Ill.
First Offered*: October 1996

Company: Time Warner Inc.
Where: Rochester, N.Y.
First Offered*: September 1995

*The month each company first offered residential phone service anywhere.



To: TheSlowLane who wrote (8321)9/21/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: SteveG  Respond to of 12468
 
<A> WSJ: Telecommunications: Bypassing The Bells: Keeping The Customer Satisfied
By Scott Thurm
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

How hard is it for any single company to develop a commanding edge in the
battle to deliver high-speed digital communications to the American living
room? Just ask David Nagel, chief technology officer at AT&T Corp.

AT&T's own researchers have spent years working on advanced technologies.
Earlier this year, AT&T agreed to spend more than $30 billion to buy
Tele-Communications Inc., intending to spend billions more to deliver phone
service and high-speed Internet access through cable-television wires. But
even those immense commitments aren't likely to secure a decisive advantage,
Mr. Nagel says.

All kinds of companies are promising to deliver digital nirvana through
souped-up phone lines, wireless communications and even satellites. And as
industry analysts and many of the participants themselves observe, these
competitors will be offering much the same soap. That means the winners in
what may be a decade-long battle are likely to be determined by marketing
glitz, customer hand-holding and mastery of boring details such as billing
systems and software protocols.

The "advantages are not going to be that we have technology that no one
else has," Mr. Nagel says. Instead, the market "is going to be won by better
understanding the customer and getting services in the right places."

All contestants start with advantages and disadvantages. Local phone
companies have a wire into virtually every home, but they face regulatory
hurdles and have been slow to introduce additional services. Long-distance
companies such as Sprint Corp. and MCI WorldCom Inc. are building networks
that will carry phone calls or Internet traffic from New York to Los Angeles
for almost nothing, but they will have to pay dearly to move the same
signals around the corner and into homes. Cable operators have the biggest
pipe and can offer the widest range of services, but they have to spend
liberally to convert a one-way delivery system into a two-way communications
network.

The bottom line: It's hard to identify a clear favorite. "I do not think
there will be a cost advantage. I do not think there will be a service
advantage," says Ken McGee, vice president at Gartner Group, a Stamford,
Conn., research company. Instead, Mr. McGee sees the competition devolving
into a "marketing exercise."

To a degree, the teams are still choosing up sides, through a dizzying
array of mergers and alliances: AT&T and TCI; the newly merged MCI and
WorldCom, combining two long-distance networks with computers that route
Internet traffic; SBC Communications Inc. and Ameritech Corp., with control
over local phone lines from Ohio to California; Bell Atlantic Corp. and GTE
Corp., combining two strong local franchises with another Internet
"backbone." Other deals are likely.

Ironically, the mergers may spur competition in the largely monopolistic
world of telecommunications, as the surviving titans invade one another's
turf. Today's rhetoric suggests that early in the next century, many
Americans will have as many as five choices for local phone service, long
distance, speedy Internet connections and television.

Similar promises have been uttered -- and broken -- before: U S West Inc.
recently spun off cable operations that once were going to provide phone
service outside its core territory. MCI charged ambitiously into local phone
service, then retreated amid big losses. Time Warner Inc. abandoned a
digital superservice -- including on-line shopping and movies on demand --
after a disappointing test in Orlando, Fla. And TCI, now the center of
AT&T's strategy, scaled back its own plans to offer enhanced services, such
as Internet access and digital TV, less than two years ago.

Here's why this time may be different: The explosion of data
communications -- faxes, electronic mail and the Internet -- and the demand
for faster connections have created a multibillion-dollar market with no
clear owner. This digital traffic is more than doubling every year and will
eclipse traditional telephone calls in volume by 2001, according to Yankee
Group, a Boston-based research firm. Once these new networks are built, they
will become very efficient -- and cheap -- ways of transporting other
signals, such as telephone calls.

That's because the telephone network relies on "circuit switching,"
establishing an unbroken connection between two phones. But the Internet
works on "packet switching," breaking up messages into small packages,
sending them on different routes, and then reassembling the packets at the
other end. Packet switching is more efficient for telephone calls as well,
because it doesn't require a dedicated open circuit for each call. By
digitizing sounds, compressing them and routing them as packets, the network
resources dedicated to each call shrink by almost 90%.

Telecommunications companies of every stripe are rushing to fill the void.
All five Baby Bells plan to offer high-speed Internet access through digital
subscriber lines by the end of the year. Cable companies are marketing their
own brand of fast Internet access and phone service in a few areas. And
Sprint says it has spent $2 billion building the network of the future,
although it won't begin offering consumers services beyond long distance for
at least another year.

Slowly, competition is emerging. In parts of Phoenix, U S West and cable
provider Cox Communications Inc. are both offering speedy Internet
connections. Neither company would divulge subscriber numbers in Phoenix,
but nationally, the cable guys are winning by offering service to more
areas, at faster speeds and lower prices. For example, Cox is charging $30 a
month for a service it says will deliver the Internet at up to two million
bits per second, 35 times faster than a conventional phone line. Meanwhile,
U S West is charging $40 a month for a 256,000-bit-per-second line, on top
of which subscribers have to arrange their own Internet service, usually $20
a month. Cox's cable modem costs about $150 more than U S West's high-speed
modem, but Michael Harris, of Phoenix-based Kinetic Strategies, estimates
that 300,000 homes are tapping the Net via cable modems, roughly 10 times as
many as are using high-speed telephone services.

Cable operators "are surprised at how well they're doing," says Jeannette
Noyes, an analyst for International Data Corp., Framingham, Mass. "They've
got more momentum right now."

As the owners of the fattest pipe into the home, cable companies also are
the only ones that now can offer a full menu of local phone service, long
distance, Internet access and multiple channels of TV. But it's unclear how
enduring these advantages will be. Fewer than 1% of American homes now have
access to any advanced services over their cable lines. Many cable systems
need major upgrades to handle two-way traffic. AT&T says it will spend $3.1
billion to improve TCI's facilities. Local phone companies also have to
install new equipment, but they have more cash and won't have to dig as
deep.

Other potential competitors, such as long-distance giants Sprint and MCI
WorldCom, face another challenge: They don't own lines into many homes.
Upstarts have tried offering local phone service by leasing these lines from
the Baby Bells, but the fees have been so onerous that no one has
successfully been able to compete. That's why MCI scaled back its
local-phone efforts earlier this year.

Sprint says its new network to carry both voice and data has changed this
economic equation. The "backbone" network will be so efficient and so cheap,
Sprint says, that it can afford to lease the local lines, or install
equipment to bypass the local phone systems, and remain competitive. "They
don't have to make their margins on that last mile," says Craig Driscoll, a
Yankee Group research analyst. "They can make their margins on all these
services."

Some people are skeptical that Sprint can pull this off. But analysts
generally agree that within a decade, most Americans will be able to choose
between two or more competitors for local phone service, long distance,
Internet access and video. And then the selling will really begin.

There will, of course, be discounts for choosing a single supplier for all
these services. And how about a cable company offering "free" long-distance
calling, because its packet-switching network makes it as easy to send those
calls across the country as across town? Or a $5 monthly flat fee to call
anyone else on the same network? Cox already is significantly undercutting
SBC's Pacific Bell unit by charging $10 a month for local phone service --
along with 10 cents a minute for long distance -- in Orange County, Calif.
Tired of dinnertime phone calls from the long-distance companies? Get ready
for door-to-door pitches. That's how Cox is selling its phone service in
Orange County. Sprint executives also talk about door-to-door sales. While
the costs of providing service shrink, "what's likely to go up are marketing
costs," says Kevin Brauer, Sprint's president of national integrated
services.

The sales pitches must begin long before the services become available.
Sprint, for instance, rented the Richard Rogers Theater in New York to
announce its new ION data network, which is still being developed. The idea
is to excite subscribers as early as possible -- not because they create
profits, but because they help generate even more subscribers. "I don't
think analysts are looking right now at net income and return on
investment," says Larry Yokell, product-development director for U S West's
high-speed services. "It's get as many subscribers as you can."

To distinguish their offerings, executives already are thinking beyond
basic services. AT&T's Mr. Nagel wants to integrate messages from different
systems -- voice mail at work and home, a wireless phone and a pager. Pat
Campbell, Ameritech's executive vice president for corporate strategy,
wants to provide unique content: a navigation guide to the Internet, or
virtual browsing in specific stores, for example.

But much of the battle will be fought -- and decided -- in the less-sexy
trenches of operations and customer service. It's expensive for phone and
cable companies to deploy crews to install high-speed modems in homes. So US
West is experimenting with giving away modems if consumers will install
them on their own.

New billing systems will have to be created and integrated with old
systems. And packet-switched networks will need layers of expensive software
to make sure that each transmission is handled properly. Electronic mail
carrying a video clip of the grandchildren may be bulky, but it's not
crucial that all the packets arrive at precisely the same instant. If the
relatively small packets of a phone call don't arrive simultaneously,
however, the call will sound hollow and delayed.

Again, there's no clear favorite. For overall service, consumers now tend
to rate local phone companies higher than long-distance companies or cable
operators. But the long-distance providers are more experienced competitors,
and the cable companies have proved themselves very effective in the early
rounds. Cox, for example, slowed its marketing push for phone service in
Orange County to limit the backlog of orders for service connections.

Some services would require changes in consumer attitudes. Sprint, for
example, wants to charge customers based on how many packets of information
they send and receive, rather than minutes of telephone use. And it's not
even clear that consumers would want to buy all these services from the same
company.

"Every time I talk about this, I realize what we don't know," says
Ameritech's Mr. Campbell. "We don't know enough about the consumer. We'll
bet wrong there."

Mr. Thurm is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's San Francisco
bureau.



To: TheSlowLane who wrote (8321)9/21/1998 12:02:00 PM
From: SteveG  Respond to of 12468
 
<A> WSJ: Telecommunications: Bypassing The Bells: Net Effect: Using The Internet
To Make Phone Calls Is Still A Fringe Market; But Perhaps Not For Long
By Lisa Bransten
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

SAN FRANCISCO -- Annette Berger likes a deal, and says she's getting a
good one routing her long-distance calls over the Internet.

"Sometimes the connection isn't quite as good, but the offset in price
takes care of that," she says. Ms. Berger, a 64-year-old retired social
worker, says she has cut her phone bills by about 40% using a technology
that big long-distance providers viewed until recently as nothing more than
a sideshow for gadget freaks.

While Ms. Berger is comfortable using e-mail and surfing the Internet, she
says she wouldn't try to install and configure the special software that
used to be needed to make personal computers place phone calls over the Net.
But the AT&T Corp. Connect 'N Save service she began using in May dispenses
with the need for any kind of setup work. Indeed, it doesn't even require a
PC. To place an Internet call, the only extra labor required is to dial a
seven-digit access code before the number. (When calling away from home, she
would have to dial as many as 34 digits before the number.)

As Internet calling grows simpler, it is attracting a whole new crowd of
customers like Ms. Berger who aren't hard-core techies. A host of companies
-- from start-ups to the planet's biggest telecommunications concerns -- are
now convinced that Internet phone service will win more than a fringe
market.

And the service is getting a big lift at a crucial time in its development
from the battle over the "last mile" of the telecommunications
infrastructure. At the moment, domestic long-distance calls made through the
Internet are cheaper than traditional calls because they are viewed as data
rather than voice transmissions. So, they aren't subject to the access fees
that the regular carriers must pay local phone companies to originate and
complete regular calls -- though that could soon change.

Big long-distance companies are stepping up their Internet-calling efforts
in part because they want to defend their business against start-ups
offering the service. But they also see the technology as an offensive tool
that allows them to circumvent the access fees, which average about four
cents a minute per call.

In practical terms, Internet calls differ from traditional calls mostly in
the way they move across networks. Regular, circuit-switched calls open up a
single dedicated circuit that remains open between two phones -- and
unavailable for other use -- until a call is concluded. Internet calls,
however, don't hog a whole circuit for themselves. Instead, the voices are
digitized, broken up into "packets" of data and sent along the most
efficient avenue between the two phones that's free at a given moment.

Packets from one call may move over different circuits during the course
of the call before being reassembled on the other end. And a single circuit
may carry packets from more than one call during the course of those
conversations. That makes Internet calling more efficient, but it can also
lead to lower-quality calls if the data aren't recombined perfectly.

Jeff Pulver, president of pulver.com, an Internet telephony consulting
firm in Melville, N.Y., says, "All [customers] want is consistent quality
each time they place a call" -- something Internet calling is still working
to achieve. Still, he adds, "I believe the technology is inevitable. Packets
just do it cheaper than circuit-switched in the long run."

Jupiter Communications, a New York market-research firm, estimates
Internet phone services will generate just $17.4 million in revenue this
year, but projects that number will leap to nearly $500 million by 2000 and
top $1 billion by 2002.

That would still represent only about 3% of U.S. long-distance and
international phone revenue, but it should be enough to ensure that big
players continue to move down the Internet-phone path, says Jupiter analyst
Abhi Chaki. "It's pretty small, but the risk of standing by the sidelines
and watching new companies take market share is far greater than [the risk
of] cannibalizing your own market," he says.

When Internet phone service took its first steps, it was offered by small
high-tech firms and adopted, naturally, by technophiles, especially those
who often made international calls. In 1995, the Israeli company VocalTec
Communications Ltd. introduced the first commercial Internet-calling
application, which allowed users to place calls over the Internet between
two PCs. PC-to-PC calling packages offered technically minded users big
savings, but also forced them to jump through a number of technical hoops,
and delivered poor sound quality to boot.

The sound quality has since improved, though it still varies even from
call to call on the same service. It can be as good as the circuit-switched
calls consumers are used to, or it can be plagued by delays, echoes and
static.

More important, calling over the Internet has become much easier. Perhaps
the key development in that regard has been the development of "gateways"
that allow Internet calling between regular phones, the kind of service Ms.
Berger has. Gateways are special computers that can transform analog signals
from a regular phone into digital signals that can be sent from local phone
lines to an Internet backbone, and then through local lines on the other
end. By routing calls through gateways, providers of Internet phone service
free consumers from having to use PCs.

The gateway concept got a big boost in July of last year, when Tom Evslin
resigned from New York-based AT&T to form ITXC Corp., based in Princeton,
N.J. Funded by AT&T and VocalTec, ITXC was created as a clearinghouse for
buying and selling access to gateways, thus forming an embryonic network for
phone-to-phone Internet calls. A month later, Deutsche Telekom AG of Germany
added its stamp of approval by agreeing to spend $30 million on VocalTec
products and services by 1999 and to pay $48 million for a 21% stake in the
company. Now, AT&T; Sprint Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; IDT Corp., a Hackensack,
N.J., long-distance carrier; and others are offering Internet calling and
tackling a number of technical issues.

For callers, the savings can be significant. U.S. customers pay an average
of about 18 cents a minute for regular domestic long-distance calls, but
both AT&T and Sprint are both charging 7.5 cents a minute in their pilot
Internet programs. IDT, through its Net2Phone unit, offers calls for five
cents a minute in the 62 cities where it has gateways and 13 cents a minute
elsewhere in the U.S.

Already, firms offering Internet calling are seeing rapid growth. By late
August, IDT had 75,000 U.S. customers for its phone-to-phone service and was
signing up as many as 600 new users a day. Howard Jonas, IDT's founder and
chairman, predicts a marketing campaign that began last month will boost the
total to 250,000 users by year's end.

AT&T made another big commitment to the market with its recent agreement
to acquire cable giant Tele-Communications Inc., Englewood, Colo. The plan
is to get around the last-mile bottleneck by using the cable wiring TCI
already has into 33 million U.S. homes to offer a host of communications
services, including not only high-speed Internet access and cable-TV service
but also local and long-distance telephone service. Customers who wanted
Internet calling would plug their phones into special boxes that would
convert the analog signals into digital ones and shoot them out onto the
Internet.

ITXC's Mr. Evslin says the AT&T-TCI combination simply hastens the time
when a single wire will replace separate phone, cable and Internet lines.
Ultimately, he says, the distinction between Internet service providers and
telephone carriers will disappear; both will offer the same services and
carry information the same way.

The distinction in terms of access fees may fade away, too. Access fees
are declining as part of a plan developed last year by the Federal
Communications Commission. And although the agency decided at that time not
to force Internet service providers to pay access charges, in April it said
in a report that it reserved the right to look at data carriers and
determine on a case-by-case basis whether they were providing information or
telecommunications services. Though the report didn't discuss access fees
specifically, it did suggest that the FCC might take a closer look at how it
regulates Internet calling in the future.

"We think that by 2001 it will basically be a level playing field between
traditional and IP-based services," says Christopher Mines, an analyst at
Forrester Research Inc. in Cambridge, Mass.

But, Mr. Mines adds, Internet calling's greater efficiency means it has
"advantages that will persist beyond the end of the regulatory disparity."

Now that phone-to-phone Internet calls are possible, the next challenge
for providers of Internet phone service is to make the technology
indistinguishable from regular phone service. Mr. Pulver of pulver.com says
many consumers will reject it until they are no longer aware that they are
using something different.

"Future networks will be [Internet]-based, but that's technology -- and
people don't care about technology," he says. "You can't retrain people and
expect them to be happy with less quality."
---



To: TheSlowLane who wrote (8321)9/21/1998 12:06:00 PM
From: SteveG  Respond to of 12468
 
<A> WSJ: Telecommunications: Bypassing The Bells: Consultant's Call: Lawrence Vanston Makes Some Pretty Bold Predictions for the Future of Telecoms. He's Been Right Before
By G. CHRISTIAN HILL

Some people are born to sing, some to run; Lawrence K. Vanston was born to predict.

Mr. Vanston, 44 years old, is president of Technology Futures Inc., an Austin, Texas,
consulting firm that specializes in forecasting the impact of technology change, particularly
on the telephone companies. His father, John, founded the firm in 1978 to predict energy
trends, and taught a technology forecasting seminar at the University of Texas, where he
was a professor of nuclear engineering.

While the younger Mr. Vanston didn't exactly grow up discussing Gompertz and Fisher-Pry
forecasting models around the dinner table, he did take his dad's seminar while completing a
doctorate in operations research, a field that involves modeling and optimizing business
processes. After four years at Bell Laboratories, he decided the forecasting game was in his
blood too, and joined his father at the research firm.

"I saw a need for a perspective that fit between dealing with day-to-day problems with a
short-term focus and blue-sky speculation about the distant future," he says. "This
perspective requires balancing realism and imagination.... In other words, you have to have
one foot firmly planted on the ground and the other in the clouds. That was me, so I decided
to go for it."

Mr. Vanston's work involves a lot of sophisticated statistical modeling based on how new
technologies have replaced old ones in the past, and a canny recognition of all the variables
and assumptions that might throw the model off. But he's careful to point out that some of
his forecasts are based partly on somewhat simplistic "everything else stays the same"
scenarios.

For example, Mr. Vanston might look at what would happen in the market if wireless prices
plunge while assuming that the Bells' prices and costs for providing voice service remain the
same. These simplistic analyses aren't necessarily unrealistic, though. While they try to
compete with wireless providers, the phone companies may in fact have trouble lowering
both prices and costs while financing major investments in new technology.

Based on such assumptions, Mr. Vanston's forecasts can be breathtaking: Local telephone
carriers could lose 50% of their calling revenue to wireless providers by 2005; unless they
co-opt wireless technology, grab much of the data traffic and successfully enter other new
businesses, their annual cash flow will turn negative by 2010.

He also foresees nearly 90% of the nation's households being able to buy some sort of digital
data pipeline -- a cable modem, digital phone line or direct connection to a fiber-optic
network -- by 2020, and being able to download video and other information at the amazing
speed of 100 million bits a second. That's enough capacity for each home to simultaneously
receive three or four high-definition television shows, conduct several video-telephone
conversations and still have room to download other data or graphics at more than 10 million
bits a second.

But Mr. Vanston isn't regarded as some loose-tongued dreamer. His clients include most of
the Baby Bells, GTE Corp. and Sprint Corp. They belong to a joint research effort, the
Telecommunications Technology Forecasting Group, and have been paying for the Vanstons'
research for about a dozen years. They have used it to, among other things, help persuade
regulators to let them write off older cable and switching equipment much more quickly, on
the theory that rapid technological changes were rendering the assets obsolete more quickly.

"In categories where you can have a quantitative track record, his record is very good," says
Robert N. Welsh, manager for capital recovery at Bell Atlantic Corp. and the forecasting
group's chairman. "A classic example is the analog switch. Larry's company forecast the
demise of the analog switch investment long before it showed up in the (actual) data."
However, Mr. Walsh warns, "you have to be careful when you look at studies in which a lot
of things are being held equal. It is a very simplistic model of a very complex set of things."

Bell Atlantic is already aggressively pursuing countermeasures advised by Mr. Vanston, a
spokesman for the company says. It has the largest wireless operation among the Bells and
plans to deploy seven million high-speed digital data lines to customers by the end of next
year.

If anything, Mr. Vanston tries to err on the conservative side. For example, some of his
forecasts aren't adjusted to reflect the potential "multiplier" effect of several complementary
technologies, such as fiber optics and advanced digital switches, being adopted at the same
time. A forecast he made in 1995, of 48.9 million cellular-phone users by 1997, fell short of
the actual number, 55.3 million, although it was still a lot closer to the mark than most other
predictions.

Recently Mr. Vanston sat down with The Wall Street Journal to discuss his outlook for
competition in the telecommunications industry -- in particular, whether the Bells' lock on the
"last mile" of connections to the nation's households would retard market changes, or
whether it would be circumvented by new technology.

Competition Afoot

WSJ: It has been more than 2æ years since the passage of the telecommunications
deregulation act, but not much local competition has occurred. There seems to be a
pessimism that the Bells have this death grip on the last mile of connections to the nation's
homes. Is this going to change soon?

MR. VANSTON: To me, the fundamental problem has been that the local residential
telephone service right now is a great deal, money-wise, for the consumer. It's subsidized
(by long-distance fees). Therefore, it is priced, in terms of the monthly bill, well below cost,
using the existing technology. Even if the Bell companies had embraced competition with
open arms, you still have this basic problem that residential telephone service is cheap.

WSJ: How long will that barrier last?

MR. VANSTON: When you get technologies that will come below that price floor, in terms
of cost, only then will you see facilities-based local competition (with new competitors using
their own networks, rather than leasing the Bells'). And we're getting that now, in the form
of wireless personal communications services and "cable voice" (where phone calls are
carried over cable-TV lines).

WSJ: The cable companies stopped talking about offering telephone service after the Bell
Atlantic/TCI deal fell through five years ago. Now AT&T obviously has made a big bet on
cable voice by agreeing to acquire TCI. But why would cable voice be economical enough
for the cable companies to get around that price barrier you noted?

MR. VANSTON: The main reason is that they can basically add voice as an ancillary service
to their basic cable service. What they're adding is electronics (for high-speed Internet
access and Internet-based phone service) to their existing access facilities that are being paid
for by cable-TV fees. Add some switches, and off you go.

WSJ: So how would AT&T use TCI to bridge the last mile?

MR. VANSTON: It's way too soon to say whether the AT&T/TCI thing is going to be a
stroke of genius or something else. I think the real question is whether AT&T is going to use
its existing narrowband, circuit-switched telephone network (to connect cable customers to
its network) or go to Internet-protocol voice immediately. (With IP telephony, voice calls are
carried over the Internet or similar public or private networks normally used for data.) I've
heard them say different things. It sounds like they're very uncertain.

The Case for Wireless

WSJ: What's the case for wireless technology taking market share away from the
Bells' wireline business?

MR. VANSTON: I think a lot of mobile wireless comes with people, just by default,
shifting usage from wireline as wireless prices continue to fall sharply. The other
(inroad) comes as more suppliers decide to offer local service through fixed-wireless
systems. (Unlike mobile-phone systems, fixed-wireless systems, or wireless local
loops, provide a wireless link between a fixed location -- a home, for instance -- and
the broader phone network, essentially taking the place of the phone wiring to the
house.)

WSJ: Are you particularly optimistic about fixed wireless being able to bridge the last
mile for AT&T or other Bell competitors?

MR. VANSTON: Yes, I am. There are some technological advantages to doing it that
way. The capacity of the system is significantly greater if you have fixed wireless
(than on a mobile system, because a lot of mobile network capacity is wasted trying to
pinpoint the moving signal and passing it off to the next link in the network). And the
thing about any wireless solution is that you don't have to know where the customers
are and you don't have to have a high penetration rate.

WSJ: Telecommunications: Bypassing The Bells: Consultant's Call -2-

The classical paradigm for cable and especially wireline telephony is that
you have to have a very high market share, or it doesn't work eventually.
Even if it were economical to run cable or wire to 10% of the houses, you
don't know which 10% they're going to be {so you can't predict the costs}.

With wireless you can count on a certain percentage of customers and don't
have to know where they are {because you don't have to run any wires to the
house}. That's why wireless companies do great with 5% of the population,
whereas the telephone companies would go out of business with 5%, as would
the cable companies.

WSJ: How much market share can wireless take away from the Bells in voice
phone service?

MR. VANSTON: We'll probably see about 30% to 40% market-share loss within
10 years.

WSJ: What about cable voice? I believe the British cable companies took
close to 15% to 20% of the voice market after they were allowed to offer
telephone service over their systems. Do you think it would be more or less
in the U.S.?

MR. VANSTON: Wireless will take away from both cable voice and the Bells.
Of whatever's left, I would say maybe another 30% to 40% would go to cable.
The problem with the cable and telephone companies fighting for the rest is
that the economics start getting lousy when you start losing a lot of
customers {to wireless}.

WSJ: How do you see the price per minute of wireless going over the next
five to seven years?

MR. VANSTON: In five years or so, we're looking for a nickel a minute or
{even} free local calling. Or so cheap that you don't think about it.

WSJ: If you were forced to rank all of the competitors out there as major
threats to the Bells' revenues, where would you rank the long-distance
companies, the cable companies, the satellite companies, the wireless
companies, the competitive local-exchange carriers and the Internet service
providers?

MR. VANSTON: They're all threats. In terms of the last-mile barrier and
local competition, the long-distance companies in cooperation with the
wireless sector or the cable sector are certainly a threat. By themselves, I
don't think they're that big a threat, but in cooperation with somebody
else, for the residential {market}, they certainly are. Sprint's strategy
{of bundling long-distance service with local service from national wireless
affiliate Sprint PCS} seems like such a neat strategy, and one that AT&T
could adopt in a heartbeat.

Let's go back to the fundamental point that the local business itself
isn't all that lucrative. The real lucrative part of the business is either
data {transmission} or long distance. Sprint and AT&T, both with wireless
and long distance, are in a really good position to take advantage of that.

WSJ: Because they can meld their long-distance pricing structure with
their wireless pricing structure?

MR. VANSTON: Right. Plus, they're not paying the Bells fees for access {to
the local networks}. The long-distance companies pay about half their
revenues for access charges.

WSJ: That's a huge incentive. There's no bigger incentive in this
competition.

MR. VANSTON: The cable companies, perhaps not by themselves but in league
with the long-distance carriers or out-of-territory Bells, are certainly a
threat. But again, it's a question of being together with somebody else.

The satellite systems {mobile-phone networks such as Iridium LLC and data
networks such as Teledesic LLC} frankly don't seem much of a threat. I have
a tough time seeing them as a mass-market model when there are terrestrial
alternatives that are very attractive.


WSJ: What about competitive local-exchange carriers, the new-technology
companies that have received FCC approval to offer local phone service in
competition with the Bells? I'm thinking here of both young high-speed data
companies like Covad Communications and wireless providers like Teligent. I
also wonder if Internet service providers can become local telephone
carriers.

MR. VANSTON: I think ISPs could go the route of being acquired by the
long-distance companies. The local ISPs don't have the expertise or the
capital {to set up local networks}. For the CLECs, the question is whether
they want to go beyond serving primarily larger businesses. It's one step to
go from an inner-city fiber network; it's a totally different step to
provide facilities-based access to residential and small-business customers.

WSJ: They'll form partnerships, then?

MR. VANSTON: That's what I would expect them to do. These companies are
trying to be very aggressive and move very fast. By the very nature of
trying to provide a service to millions of households, making a major
investment in the ground, it would divert their attention from what they
need to be doing. If I were them, I'd be very cautious about getting their
ankles too deep in the mud of the local exchange.

WSJ: If you were going to guess, when will one or two of the long-distance
companies have substantially bypassed the Bell local loops and bypassed
access fees to achieve direct contact with residential customers?

MR. VANSTON: Well, it's a continuous process, but both in our forecasts
and others, 2002 seems to be the time where things really seem to be coming
together.

WSJ: You've made some dire forecasts about the Bells' future. In your most
recent study, you forecast their net income from voice operations would be
wiped out within 10 years, assuming their prices and costs remain the same.
How would you characterize the response to your presentations among the
Bells?

MR. VANSTON: I think we've always been taken seriously. I think the burden
of proof we accept is less stringent than what they're looking for.

WSJ: They wanted to see actual competitors installing equipment -- is that
what you're saying?

MR. VANSTON: Not only that, but actually being successful at it.

WSJ: When did you begin to see some urgency among the Bells to adopt
digital, high-speed data technologies {to lower costs and enter new
businesses}?

MR. VANSTON: It's been like a slow-moving train coming up on the horizon.
You know it's moving reasonably slowly, but you know it's big. And you know
your clients have lots of time to prepare and are in a very advantageous
position if they just start reacting to it. And it keeps coming and coming
and coming.... I think certainly in the last year or two, the train is right
on top of us now, and there are some real questions as to whether {some
companies} will get out of the way in time.

WSJ: Why has it taken them so long to hear the message?

MR. VANSTON: It's nothing unusual. Usually, the established players in a
major business have a tough time reacting to change. There are some
underlying reasons for it that are complex. But it basically comes down to
this: You're doing well and you've been doing well for a long time; you
understand your business, within its confines, very well. And under those
circumstances, it's hard to change.

The problem is that the change, when it finally comes, comes very quickly
and at that point, it's very hard to react, and you stop doing well very
quickly. That's why an IBM can be caught by surprise by a DEC, and how
Microsoft can pop up out of nowhere. This happens over and over again, that
established companies get into trouble very quickly.

WSJ: What is the best-case scenario for the Bells, looking at all of these
different threats?

MR. VANSTON: The first thing you have to do is differentiate the
local-exchange business from the Bells' overall business. A {typical} Bell
holding company owns a local-exchange carrier, or several carriers. But they
also own wireless operations and assets overseas {and a promising
technology, asymmetric digital subscriber line or ADSL, for high-speed data
delivery}. The local-exchange business per se doesn't have a best-case
scenario. The best-case scenario, to me, is for the existing companies to
continue to make a transition away from the local-exchange business to the
other businesses, to achieve significant success for ADSL, where they can
ride that technology for maybe a 10- to 15-year window and make the
transition to fiber optics, which they are well-positioned to do, to
successfully blend their {voice service} with data or video {service}.

WSJ: In terms of that best-case scenario, how optimistic are you that the
majority of the Bells are going to pull that off?

MR. VANSTON: I think the tools are there for them to do it. It comes down
to the great intangibles of culture and will. Do they have the will to do
it? History, I'm afraid, will probably be on the side of a lot of them not
making it. On the other hand, I think there's a lot of awareness of the
problem and the opportunities, and so if they can pull it together, I think
at least several will be successful.



To: TheSlowLane who wrote (8321)9/21/1998 12:15:00 PM
From: SteveG  Respond to of 12468
 
<A> WSJ: Telecommunications: Breakup: Split Decision
By Thomas E. Weber
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

The idea that competition is good has been central to telecommunications
policy ever since the big Bell System breakup of 1984. Lawmakers and
regulators, espousing the need for competition, have tinkered time and again
with the telecom landscape. And the phone market has been transformed.

But are things truly better for consumers? Some telecom experts argue that
competition has a long way to go. Still others, however, offer a more
controversial idea: Maybe there's nothing wrong with a monopoly when it
comes to your local phone company. Competition, according to this view,
hasn't taken off because it simply makes economic sense for one company to
control the costly phone line into your house.

We asked two telecommunications experts to debate that provocative idea.
One of them, A. Michael Noll, is a professor at the University of Southern
California's Annenberg School for Communication and a former researcher at
Bell Labs. The other is Jack Reich, chief executive of e.spire
Communications Inc., an Annapolis Junction, Md., local telecom company
competing against traditional phone companies.

The Wall Street Journal: When it comes to local phone service, the idea
that competition is good seems to rank up there with motherhood and apple
pie. Yet so far, competition doesn't seem to have produced a revolution for
consumers. Is it possible that all the rooting for competition has been
misguided?

Mr. Noll: Of course, competition is preferred over monopoly -- either
private or public monopoly. But some services are so essential to the public
good and safety and require the use of the public right of way along with
such large economies of scale that a private monopoly -- but regulated --
can make sense.

The old Bell System operated as a regulated monopoly for decades. One
problem was that the monopoly included telephone instruments and
manufacturing. That simply did not make sense. The other problem was the
subsidization of local service by long distance. That only created an
opportunity for contrived competition from a {long-distance} "competitor"
that refused to pay the subsidy -- and this contrived competition was how
MCI was able to "compete" initially with AT&T.

We now have many long-distance providers, some of which own physical
networks and others that resell the facilities of others. But the
differences in rates are trivial. Indeed, long-distance charges have been
decreasing, but they have been decreasing at the same rate since the 1920s.
Advances in technology -- not competition -- drive down long-distance
prices.

Meanwhile, at the local level most customers, other than large businesses,
have no choice. Although the local telephone companies offer a discount, as
much as 18%, to resellers, few have entered this business. AT&T and the
other large long-distance companies state that this is too small a margin
for them. But I know personally of consumer-electronics firms that routinely
sell at a 15% markup and have done fine.

Mr. Reich: Consumers have "end-to-end" choice today, and that is evidence
of the success of the Telecommunications Act. A business customer and many
residential customers can now approach a number of alternative suppliers,
including existing interexchange carriers {IXCs, or long distance
companies}, and have them provide their local, long-distance, data transport
and Internet access from providers other than the incumbent monopoly. These
solutions give voice and data access around the corner and around the world
for many services.

Mike has correctly highlighted advances in technology as an important
contribution to pricing. Yet, it is precisely competition that has quickly
advanced implementation of new technologies that impact innovation and cost. Speed to market is one of the reasons to advance competition.

Local telecommunications is not a natural monopoly. Customers desire
innovation, improvement in products, quality, price and choice. Competition
will speed delivery of this. Jobs increase, more customers have access to
solutions for their respective businesses to grow, and macro growth of an
industry spreads as competition develops.

WSJ: Mr. Noll, do you agree?

Mr. Noll: Residential consumers do not have any true end-to-end choice
today. My local service and access is from a single local telephone company.
The AT&T/TCI acquisition is all about AT&T attempting to bypass the local
exchange carriers to provide local telephone access over the coaxial cable
of the TCI cable television companies. But the technology to do this at
reasonable prices does not exist. One broadband medium to the home has been
the Holy Grail of the telecom industry for decades.

Business customers have choice when its comes to local service and
connection to their long-distance provider. The "bypass" providers -- as the
CLECs {competitive local-exchange carriers} used to be known -- are
cream-skimmers providing bypass services to big business customers and
ignoring residential customers, who would be too costly to service. Yet the
lack of profits of many of the CLECs makes me wonder how they survive and
how anyone can claim that even this form of competition is a success.
Success in the CLEC business seems to be {measured as} being acquired by
someone big at a big price so the founders can retire to the beach.

WSJ: What are your opinions on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
was supposed to open the local phone market to greater competition?

Mr. Reich: We'd have made much less progress had not that regulation been
implemented. The ILECs {incumbent local-service companies such as the Bells}
continue to delay and prevent choice in the market. In fact, it is still the
practice of the incumbents to drag their feet and attempt to renegotiate the
act instead of implementing it. While I support full competition at some
point, there remains an unlevel playing field favoring the incumbent.
Without the act, the RBOCs {regional Bell operating companies} would bunker
in and elect to lobby for regulation and reluctantly invest capital for
progress.

The architects of the act saw the significant progress in long distance,
and recognized that true competition in local {service} would require
facility-based investment. The CLECs and some IXCs see this and are truly
providing choice and advances. In fact, the incumbents are becoming more
customer-responsive, and that, in my opinion, is the direct result of
competition on their doorstep, not because it's their monopolistic duty. The
explosion of information access and improvements in work productivity...are
the result of competition and innovation, not anything encouraged by the
local telephone monopolies.

Mr. Noll: The Telecom Act of 1996 is in shambles. It has done nothing. The
situation today would be no different if it had not been passed -- other
than with the act we have higher cable rates, higher telephone bills because
of all the subsidies, government protectionism of the Internet, and attempts
at censoring television content. An industry that needs an act is sick
indeed. Industry is usually far better off without the meddling of the U.S.
Congress.

Mr. Reich: I take great exception that the Telecommunications Act is in
"shambles." That is simply not true. The act affirmed a way that competition
can grow and prosper so that customers can have choice. Access lines in the
CLEC group have grown from zero in 1996 to nearly four million today. Local
competition is accelerating the RBOCs' interest in the data and Internet
business that would not have happened had the act not opened competition.
The situation is very different now partially because of the act and due in
large part to customer receptivity to the choice provided from
pro-competition entrepreneurs.

WSJ: OK, Mr. Noll, you're clearly dissatisfied. Is there any other way?

Mr. Noll: We have all been told that competition stimulates innovation and
invention. Yet when I think of the provision of telephone service, I am hard
pressed to give concrete examples of this accepted "truism." In telephony,
competition has led to choice, that is true. But for most customers there is
little to choose in the choice, other than different advertisements and
perhaps different pricing plans and rebates.

Choice leads to confusion, to conflict, to contention. It can also lead to
charges of collusion and conspiracy. I fear we are moving to chaos and
perhaps some future cataclysm and catastrophe. We are now at chaos and
consolidation. And all in the name of competition!

A problem with the old Bell monopoly was that everything had to be done
its way. I had no choice in the packages of services. A solution would be to
operate the provision of facilities as a monopoly but have competitive
choice in the sales of service packages. In effect, a wholesale/retail model
applied to telecommunication.